click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20110701
20110731
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)
fitsity still. there's no legislative language. it looks like what could be a pretty big tax increase. the spending cuts i think are highly uncertain. it instructs the various committees of the senate and the house to come up with these spending cuts. we have no assurance that they will do that. we have no idea how they'll do that. then we asked the senate to vote on that. all of which suggests to me there are a number of ways in which this could fall apart. i give these guys all the credit in the world for really struggling and trying to make some progress on a tough issue. there's no assurance that it results in an outcome. if we can't agree on spending cuts now, why should we suppose at the end of this process which after all has been available to us for two years the senate won't even pass a budget, why we think that this will result in real spending cuts is not clear to me. >> the other dynamic here is the mcconnell-reid proposal. that is going to get to the floor at some point. now the idea of being that the gang of six proposal is too late to be scored by cbo to really be put i
leaders are digging in on the big sticking point of taxes ahead of tomorrow's white house summit. chuck todd is nbc's chief white house correspondent and host of "the daily rundown." chuck, we've heard a lot from republicans. today at the bloomberg breakfast it was said that any tax measures had to be revenue positive over the long run that could be ten years out. eventually have to contribute toward deficit reduction. that is not what republican senator john cornyn was saying exactly the opposite what he said on our show yesterday that it has to be revenue neutral. how does the president hope to bridge this devoid? >> reporter: well, you know, they have an interesting tactic here. they believe and frankly behind the scenes so do house republicans believe it will be easier to sell a larger deal that has some things in it that nobody's crazy about on certain sides. whether some trims to entitlements on the democratic side or some of these revenue proposals on the republican side that if it's a large deal, $2.5 trillion to $4 trillion and maybe even $6 trillion in the out years meaning th
ahead with a big deal maybe triggered in or staged later? >> i heard what the president said. i don't think business itself is bothered by the debt ceiling deal or no deal. i think what they may be bothered by is the uncertainty surrounding future tax regime that's going to be required to deal with these deficits. however, factoring into the negotiations what maybe somewhat helpful to the president in a slew of numbers that by and large are totally unhelpful is we're seeing the near term effects of cutting back in government spending. it cost jobs. not just in the government sector, but also in knock on private sector jobs as well. >> steve liesman with all the numbers and what that mean. thank you so much. good to see you, steve. republicans using the bad jobs report to scuttle any new taxes in a budget deal. joining me now virginia democratic senator mark warner a key member of the so-called gang of slight, slightly shrunk to five. still hoping senators working for months on ways to reduce the deficit. your quick reaction to the jobs report first and how it will effect the negotia
to comment until you see some specifics. i think that the bottom line is in terms of an overall deal, the big holdup here is the fact that republicans have kept revenues off the table completely, even eric cantor yesterday, people said well, it's a great thing he says maybe he'll do a few of these egregious loopholes in the law, corporate jets and yachts and stuff like this, but even there, he had another loophole put in the law and none of the money that would be -- that comes from closing these loopholes would be used to reduce the deficit. so it's one step forward, two steps back. if republicans are willing to entertain serious revenues, there's a real chance for a big deal. if they're not, there's no chance for a big deal and i can tell you this. democrats are not going to go for something that says we have all these cuts that we'll put in the budget now and maybe we'll get revenues down the road, the ways and means committee or the finance committee will decide those down the road. leader reid issued a statement that i think sums up our view, that there has to be balance between cuts and
. there's supposedly meetings between the white house and senate and big game players later this beak. in erms the of a deal we're getting a real date, not necessarily august 2nd, but july 22nd. why? there's a ten-day period needed for the congressional budget office to score any type of compromise as well as you're going to have to sell this compromise to the members. house republicans have been steadfast they don't want any tax increases to consider any type of compromise. speaker boehner needs some time to sell that to his members. >> you're talking about political high ground. you're not talking about the substance. i want to ask you about libya. there is a procedural vote the first step on the kerry-minnesota cane resolution on libya what do you see there? >> it's around 5:30 p.m. today. it really is a procedural vote on the mccain-kerry libya resolution which says for one year the u.s. should allow -- there should be force in libya, u.s. backed force with no ground troops. to one democratic aide said they really don't know how this vote the going to come come out. there is specu
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)